"Islam vs. Islamists" controversy

I see what your are saying here. But I think you don't give regular American Muslims enough credit. I've known quite a few of them, and most have no intention of ever bringing the U.S. under Islamic rule. They try to bring their own lives under Islamic rule, and they may try to work with like minded religious leaders in their community to further a traditionalist view. While it is true there is a certain measure of sympathy for the cause of jihadists in some countries overseas, it is not the tactics that they admire. Unfortunately, you cannot separate out the tactics of terrorists from their actual political cause - if they even have any.
Second-generation Muslims have begun to lose the tendency towards factionalism and conspiracy theories, though I still see those tendencies in first generation immigrants. My teaching team at the Arabic Basic Course was about half Muslim, half Christian. And the first generation teachers were far more prone to denigrate each other. Oh, Muslims are terrible people, the Christians would say. And vice versa. And oh, he's not really Arab at all, he's Assyrian, and we hate Assyrians. The younger and second generation teachers, like most Americans, didn't really care either way.
There is hope. You could argue that Islam in America has gone far better than Islam in Europe. And part of it is because we are perfectly willing to assimilate immigrants. There is no such thing as American as an ethnicity - while there is a German and a French ethnicity. Our immigration policies are more fair than Europe's. I am afraid that as we become less willing to assimilate, we may polarize our minority groups as in many places in Europe.

Don't you understand, Irenaeus? The surgeon general (whoever he is) is the first crucial building block in the Grand Christianist Theocracy that Bushhitler and the Religious Right seek to impose on America!! Be forewarned.

I guess Grand Archdictator Bushitleretard and his minions haven't stormed and taken control of PBS yet. He's famous, and highly criticized, for saying Islam is a "religion of peace." The voices in this documentary would seem to add credence to that claim.

Rod- As soon as you find out, please post where the general public can actually see/obtain "Islam vs. Islamists." Since our esteemed public-interest broadcaster, PBS (which stands for Pretty Bad Stewardship), won't show it, I'd like to see it on my own.

I haven't seen all of the "Crossroads" films, but I did see the segment about Irshad Manji and her version of liberal or moderate Islam. There was another about the struggle in Indonesia between the radical and moderate sects. I can't speak for this one segment, but "Crossroads" hardly covers up for the bad guys. What's more, they initially commissioned 20 films and only broadcast 11. Your boys aren't alone in being unhappy about not making the cut, and I'm sure all the snubbed producers have beefs.

I think we do not hear much about these 'progressive' voices in Islam because they challenge the widely held notion of the cultural elite that Islamism is somehow a product of the West/USA and Israel. Once you remove that victimology by suggesting Islamism is a perversion, a hijacking of legitimate belief, too many people would have to re-examine their beliefs about the Middle East in general and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular.

Well, so much for the Franklin Graham line that "all Muslims are evil" and "all Muslims are terrorists" and "Islam is evil and violent at its core because there are incitements to violence in the Koran - never mind the ones in the Old Testament". At least maybe we can put that one to rest once and for all.

That would be prevented from airing--by the Right!

I'm a firm believer in hearing both sides of a story before forming an opinion, but a Google search for "Islam vs. Islamists" only produced some columns by Gaffney complaining of censorship and lots of stuff on the right-wing blogosphere agreeing with him. What I can't find is either a statement from PBS or anyone willing to defend them. Where can I hear PBS's side of the story, other than the selected quotes provided by Gaffney? The Arizona Republic is the only newspaper to my knowledge to have written about it. PBS officials refused to be interviewed about the controversy. I provided a link to the AZ Republic story in the item.

"Islam is Islamist." Oh, here we go again!

Oh, here we go again! No. Here you go again. I don't have time to argue with people who refuse to see what's in front of their nose.

Derek, if Irshad Manji is either an Islamist or not Islamic at all, I'm a vermicious knid. tovart, I spend too much time here. It's exhausting.

Derek, if Irshad Manji is either an Islamist or not Islamic at all, I'm a vermicious knid. Then a vermicious knid you are. Try preaching Manji's lesbian feminism at any orthodox mosque and see how far you get.

btw, Irshad Manji reports that more and more Muslims the world over are responding positively to her work, telling her that they have been thinking along the same lines but have been afraid to talk about it because of the severity of the power structures in Islamic countries. So they are growing in number. Call them what you want, but they call themselves Muslims. Go figure.

Don't believe her. I don't care.

I didn't say anything about 90%. I have no way of knowing what percentage of Muslims are Islamist. I only know the Islamic community is not homogeneous. It's more complicated than that. I *thought* that's what the PBS documentary set out to demonstrate and that *liberals* sought to suppress it because they *didn't* want to let the word get out and conservatives *did*. In any case, having heard Irshad Manji (who I believe is part of the documentary) speak and read parts of her book, I am simply sharing what I know. That is in no way meant to imply that Islamism is not a threat to take seriously.

I have a feeling that PBS gave in out of cowardice, out of fear of being called "Islamophobic" or of engaging in a "Witch Hunt" against Muslims.

Islamists* first sentence quotes.
should have proofread

"Because whenever someone claiming to act in the name of Christianity does something violent or commits an act of terrorism, the first people to speak up in denunciation are Christian clergy and committed Christians." You mean like the vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has endorsed the murder of abortion doctors? Or like William Donahue, who sits back while his followers issue death threats to filmmakers and lame artists he doesn't like (while, meanwhile, he says nothing about anti-Catholicism among his fundamentalist Protestant allies). Or like LaHaye, Hagee, Robertson, or Falwell, who enthusiastically predict Armageddon in the Middle East, and have backed the Iraq war from day one (speaking of which, have they ever condemned Rumsfeld and co. for backing the would-be Nebuchadnezzar Saddam Hussein in the 80's?) Or like Bp. Akinola, who backs a law in Nigeria that not only makes homosexual activity illegal, but also openly supporting gay rights, meanwhile ignoring the blatant corruption and oppression in that country. Just like Islamists, they are the ones given the screen time. They are the ones who get all the attention, while the moderates and liberals are largely ignored or marginalized in the media. To look at the way the media covers religion, you'd think Muslims were all bomb-belt-wearing, ululating lunatics, and all Christians are Bible-thumping, gay-hating, sexist Republicans. And I'm sure the fundamentalists in Christianity and Islam like it that way.

Just curious: Has anyone commenting watched the 11 shows of the series? Has anyone commenting seen any of the 9 shows that didn't make the cut besides "Islam vs. Islamists"? I've seen a few of the episodes, and they were pretty good. I'm curious if the rest met the same standard. But the point is also that airtime is finite, and to take the word of an understandably disgruntled producer as the final word is wrong-headed.

As a Muslim, I tend to be wary of the people whom the media lionizes as "moderates". What they define as a moderate is usually someone who has abandoned Islam or wants to remanufacture it. Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina-- celebrated by the Right-- are both atheists. Irshad Manji is a lesbian with a following that consists of secular Christians and Jews in the mainstream media. It seems kind of like holding up Leon Trotsky as a "moderate jew". Or declaring Rosie O Donnel as Catholic reformer. Let me be more specific and give you a case in point: Irshad Manji's been doing the rounds on cable and on the lecture circuit. She markets herself as an Islamic reformer, and is advertised by the media as "the Muslim Martin Luther". Now, I'm not particulary observant, but I find this woman absolutely repulsive. My more observant coreligionists-- well let's just say that they'll climb walls if you mention her name. Think about it for a minute... A Muslim Martin Luther? Martin Luther was a religious scholar with substantial credibilty. Now, imagine (in that time and place in Christendom) if the village harlot had proposed to reform Christianity and posted the the 99 Theses-- and some of those theses insisted that the old moral code should be adjusted to allow for prostitution, Christ was gay (and that was OK), and the Old Testament should be ignored.
Frankly, I really wish that the word "moderate" would disappear from within the lexicon of this debate. The appropriate classifications are: 1. Observant 2. Non-observant 3. Islamist (two categories) 3a. non-violent Islamist 3b. Jihadist

hamza, Thank you for providing an insider's view. The more we know about something, the more accurately we can discuss it. Questions: Would you classify Irshad Manji as non-observant? Are Islamists the only violent ones? Are observant Muslims all non-violent? How do you observe the breakdown? Are Islamists (violent or otherwise) about 90% of the Muslim population? Or are non-violent Muslims, as someone claimed I believed (though I don't believe one way or the other because I don't know) about 90% of the population?

wildwest: You asked a few good questions. Thanks.
Is Irshad Manji observant or non-observant? Charitably speaking, she's non-observant. That alone (being sinful or non-observant) will not take you out of the embrace of God. According to the Koran, the only things that can make you an apostate are: 1. Redefining Morality. Declaring as good and moral something God deems to be evil and immoral. (setting yourself up as God)
2. Declaring that there are gods other than God. 3. Declaring that there are prophets after Mohammed. So, her being a lesbian (while disgusting) doesn't by itself make her an apostate, but merely sinful. Howveer, redefining morality-- that pretty much does it. As to which group is violent, let me recast the term "violence" as "religiously mandated violence". Within this context, only the Jihadist Islamists are intrinisically and doctrinally predisposed to violence. Islamists come in a lot of hues. I used to hate them all, but after studying them and interacting with them, I realized that mostly they are basically like ultra-Orthodox Jews-- they can be annoying and obnoxious and endlessly ritualistic-- but they really don't want to kill anyone. Of course, if you push them hard enough. Well, that's another matter. I'd say between 25 and 35% of the Muslim poplulation are serious Islamists. Islamist being defined as someone who wishes to live in a country under their particular understanding of Holy Law. These numbers can easily be inflated, though, because to ask a Muslim "do you want to live under the Holy Law" is like asking a serious Christian whether he wants to live in the Kingdom of God. The answer is "of course". But if you ask them if you want to live under the Taliban's Sharia-- they'll laugh at you. So, these Islamists range from people you could relate to as a human being and enjoy a conversation with, to people who may not like the tactics of the Jihadists, but still sympathize with them. I'd say Islamists who sympathize with the Jihadists are 10 to 15% of the overall population. Maybe half of those would provide aid to a Jihadist in need. Basically, anybody can be pushed to violence. But some people have been indoctrinated to violence. Those are the Jihadists and I suspect they comprise 1/2 of 1 percent of the population. If that number appears small to you, remember that half of 1% of 1.2 billion people is still 12 million lunatics. And they float in a sea of maybe 50 or 60 million sympathizers. So, for now, this is a serious problem, but still containable.

I think Hamza makes some really good observations. I admire Irshad Manji's courage, and defend her right to speak out without having to fear for her life or safety. But I think it would be absurd for us non-Muslims to take her as a normative example for a Muslim. How would we more orthodox Christians believe if we were told by the media that if we didn't accept Bishop Spong as equally representative of legitimate Christianity as anybody else, that there was something wrong with us?

Well, most Christian denominations -- comprising the overwhelming majority of self-identified believers -- subscribe to the teachings of at least the first six (or is it seven?) ecumenical councils. I would call that "normative". Bishop Spong publicly expresses his disbelief in some of these basic teaches, which puts him outside the purview of "normative" Christianity.

Like I said, Bishop Spong isn't normative.

"As a Muslim, I tend to be wary of the people whom the media lionizes as "moderates". What they define as a moderate is usually someone who has abandoned Islam or wants to remanufacture it." hamsa, as a practicing Roman Catholic, and as a conservative, OH, DO I HEAR THAT :-)!! BTW, how very much I would love to hear your/Islam's position on what some historians say about Islam being just the Prophet's version of Orthodox (large O) Catholicism.

Thank you, hamza. For Catholics, the heresy argument is easy to believe for a number of reasons; primarily because the similarities in belief about the one, true God and His characteristics, the OT, the mission and return of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, heaven, etc., etc., are far too numerous to have occurred by accident. One person's heresy is another person's reform, I guess. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Muslim and Catholic scholars go behind closed doors and present arguments for each other's beliefs about why certain parts of the Bible were retained and certain parts rejected. What I don't understand about such talks is whether it makes any difference if the Muslim scholars are Jihadists or not, i.e., is there only one basic set of Muslim doctrines as there is in Roman Catholicism?

"One person's heresy is another person's reform, I guess." Cleveland. Thank you for your thoughtful questions. And your kind remarks. It is a rare man who can look through another man's eyes. I, too, would love to hear an honest discussion between educated religious scholars. The problem as I see it, is that there are very few people these days in our institutions or yours who aren't just religious bureacrats. I did meet a few great Jesuits, and a few brilliant lay Catholics-- and we talked endlessly. I guess those of us who had a classical education (whatever our background) seems to have a lot in common. I recall that Ali (the fourth Caliph) said once (I'm paraphrasing) that "In the end there will be many who call themselves Muslim or Christian or Jew, but few will be Believers.
I find that particularly poignant these days when I run into professional clergy-- ours or yours.

hamza, I echo harvey's sentiments--it's the first time ever for me--so you can see that you have brought a beneficial result to this blog :-). The fourth Caliph's remark seemingly is all too true; many people already call themselves members of this or that faith without being authentic believers.
I would add that only about forty percent of Catholics know what their faith entails. The rest can't believe what they don't even know. I, too, place the blame for that on Catholic clergy bureaucrats--they are known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Fortunately for believing Catholics, led by Pope Benedict XVI, we very slowly are dragging our bishops, kicking and screaming, back to being shepherds of orthodoxy and beauty and reverence in the liturgy.

It appears this discussion has subsided, nonetheless, I happened to see the CSpan Q & A interview of Frank Gaffney, Executive Producer of the documentary movie Islam vs. Islamists. First, the interview ended with PBS editors and producers indicating in written statements that the movie itself failed to meet PBS editorial standards and therefore was rejected.

I concur with PBS' decision. The CSpan interview showed clips of the movie which included totally unsubstantiated allegations against individual Muslims and Muslim groups. Saying a group is violent when there is no evidence of violence committed by such a group is simply false. Saying the entire Muslim community in America is run by extremists or such nonsense is entirely polemic. Yet the movie made such remarks. Unfortunately, Crunch Con used it as a source to pass judgement on Muslims in America and abroad despite the piece's simple editorial falsehoods and fallacies.

And the Gaffney connection cannot be discounted. Gaffney is a notorious ideological propagandist. He is a Neo Con who has been run out of Washington DC by his Neo Con cohorts. With a global agenda tied to his support for the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and his ties to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Abrams, Perle, etc., his politics are as much a part of the movie.